again, could the internet please note the differences between —
(a) the factual statement that a flawed creator did deliver admirable works; (b) the causal hypothesis on whether the said flaw — (x) was what made the works possible, or (y) preempts and negates the merit of the works; and (c) the moral/legal judgment on how the creator should face consequences for the flaw.
now, it’s perfectly fine to debate each point or any combination thereof, but not until the creator is taken off the artificial pedestal. The creator is, at best, the surrogate for the totality of their ambience, and their deliveries are to be assessed thereby.
Please be advised that this post was written or last updated a while ago and may therefore contain outdated information or opinions I no longer hold.
请知悉本文自写作或上次更新已届相当时限，或包含过时信息及观点。